Marc Gander - The Consumer Survival Handbook


A 220 page introduction to all things consumer related by our own BankFodder.

Includes energy companies, mobile phone providers, retailers, banks, insurance companies,debt collection agencies, reclaim companies, secondhand car sellers, cowboy garages, cowboy builders and all the rest who put their own profits before you.

£6.99



Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1. #1
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default mcuth v NatWest ***WON***

    Sent off a DPA request today for charges on an old current account. I'm pretty sure it's within 6 yearsicon anyway, but I've asked for details since inception

    Cheers

    Michael

    Similar Threads:
    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  2. #2
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Sending the following reminder shot across the bows today:

    Data Protection Controller
    National Westminster Bank PLC
    135 Bishopsgate
    London
    EC2M 3UR


    By Royal Mail Special Delivery

    Dear Sir/Madam

    Section 7 DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 – Subject access requesticon
    Account number XXXXXX/XXXXXXXX
    (currently with Allied International Credit (UK) Ltd – ref XXXXXXXX)
    {mcuth}

    letter before actionicon

    At the time of writing, you have failed to comply with my Data Protection Act (‘Data Protection Act’) S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) dated 12th June 2006. You are reminded that under the DPA, you have 40 days from receipt of the SAR to provide the requested information – the 40 days expires on Saturday 22nd July 2006, as advised in my SAR.

    I am willing to extend this deadline by 7 working days (i.e. to Tuesday,
    1st August, 2006) to allow you further time to provide the requested information. Should you still have failed to comply by that time, I shall seek a Court order obliging you to do so, together with damages at the discretion of the Court, and without any further notice.

    I should note that the cheque I sent with the request has not yet been banked – since I made my SAR, the account I issued the cheque on has been closed. Thus, I enclose a Postal Order in the sum of £10 to cover the statutory fee.

    Yours faithfully,


    {mcuth}
    I should note that Allied International Credit are already in default of a CCA Requesticon for the above account, the balance owing is in dispute, and they have been reported to Trading Standards for this (last communication was over 3 months ago)

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  3. #3
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Filed a DPA section 7 SARicon non-compliance complaint with the ICicon today - figured I have a bit of time on my hands and an N1 can always come later....

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  4. #4
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Spoke to the ICOicon yesterday - apparently they're now dealing with cases submitted on 12th July So, in another month they may get around to this....

    I did check whether this process would exclude me from taking court action, and it doesn't

    I'll let it run its course for a while and see what happens....

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  5. #5
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Received a reply from the ICOicon stating that although they don't believe a formal investigation is required, it's clear that NatWest's failure to comply within 40 days is a breach of the 6th Data Protection Principle ("personal dataicon shall be processed win accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act").

    The ICO will be informing NatWest of the outcome of their assessment and instructing them to respond to my SAR in full with immediate effect.

    Not quite sure how long this gives NatWest to comply, but the ICO case is now closed as a result of this

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  6. #6
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Spoke with the chap at the ICOicon today, as I've not heard anything from NatWest since his letter of 12th September, when he'd written to them requesting immediate action.

    We had a chat about the upsurge in SARs, and I told him I was a member of CAGicon, so I was aware of this, but at the same time RBoS & NatWest are the only organisations that have failed to respond to a SARicon out of all the requests I've made. He said they're most likely overworked - in which case, I said, I could understand a response being late by a few days, but not taking 4 months with absolutely nothing received! Quite frankly, I said, they're taking the p**s as Data Controllers.

    In his letter of 12th Sept, he also asked them to reply to him explaining why I didn't get a response to my request, and gave them 4 weeks to reply to him. So I think we're going to wait & see what they come back to him with first before deciding next actions. I have a feeling that eventually 2 N1s are going to be raised - one to supply the information, and the other as an estimated charges claim for £5000

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  7. #7
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Had another chat with the nice man at the Information Commissioners Office today.

    NatWest have now replied to him, saying they received my Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject access requesticon) on 14th April (really? A whole 2 months before I sent it? We suspect they got a little confused here) and ordered my statements on 23rd June. Then they apparently re-ordered my statements again at the end of July after my lbaicon.

    In reply to the Information Commissioners Office's letter, NatWest said that they'd again ordered the statements, so let's see if they turn up this time - he received the letter today, so we're giving them until the end of next week.

    I had a nice long chat with the Information Commissioners Office man, all about how I hadn't heard a thing out of NatWest since my request back in June - he thinks that the banks are swamped by our requests, but again I said that NatWest & RBoS are the only ones of my set that have gone over 40 days. I said that 40 days is reasonable anyway, but even 60 or 90 might just be acceptable under extreme circumstances & with communication.... I pointed out that we're now over 120 days and I haven't heard a peep out of them - no acknowledgement, no nothing - in fact, the DCAicon collecting for NatWest (and therefore NatWest) has been in default of a s77/78 CCA Requesticon since January!

    Personally, I think the Information Commissioners Office is well aware that the banks are taking the ****, but I don't think they have enough resources to go after them properly....

    Onwards & upwards I guess - let's see what next week brings

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  8. #8
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Another chat with the nice man from the ICOicon today (after successfully guessing his email address ) - advised that there's still no word from NatWest, despite their assurances they've ordered statements. He's on the case now....

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  9. #9
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    After a couple more phone callsicon with the ICOicon, received a lettericon from them today:

    Dear {mcuth}

    Thank you for your e-mail communications of 9th & 13th November 2006.

    You wrote to inform me that despite their assurances, NatWest had failed to furnish you with copies of your account statements.

    As NatWest Bank have seemingly failed to respond to your Subject access requesticon in its entirety, I have taken the decision to refer the matter to our Regulatory Action Division for futher consideration. You will be contacted by a Remedies Officer in due course.

    I would like to thank you in advance for your patience during the interim.

    Yours sincerely
    I wonder if this might get interesting in the end after all?

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  10. #10
    Battleaxe
    Guest

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    McCuth,

    I am set to trot withe MBNA/A & L credit cards. have the 40 day default letter for posting tomorrow and I have told them 7 more days and I visit my local county courticon to file against them Section 7 and 15(2) of the Data protection Act 1998 at 10am on the morning of 1 December 2006.
    Also warning that I am filing an official complaint with the Information Commissioner as well as the Financial Services Authority.

    We must be keeping the Information Commissioner busy. perhaps he is going to call the Banks in and tell them to get with the programe and for once co-operater...whoops I saw a pinkk piggy fly past my window.

    Well McCuth and keep us posted...


  11. #11
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Spoke with the Regulatory Action Division peeps yesterday - apparently my case is 5th/6th from the top of the list now Fed up, so am just going to take an N1 down to the court this afternoon:

    Brief details of claim
    Order under Section 7 and Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998
    Damages

    Value
    £100.00

    Particulars of Claim
    1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and is responsible for the
    processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.
    2. The Claimant has a Current Account number XXXXXXXX ("the Account") with the Defendant.
    3. On 12th June 2006, the Claimant sent a Subject access requesticon ("S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)"), pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Defendant (Appendix 1 attached). This was sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery and delivery was signed for on 13th June 2006.
    4. On 19th July 2006, the Claimant sent the Defendant a further letter extending the requisite 40 day timescale by 7 days (Appendix 2 attached). This was also sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery and delivery was signed for on 20th July 2006.
    5. On 8th August, 2006, the Claimant raised a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office ("the Information Commissioners Office") which has been allocated reference RFAXXXXXXX and has further been allocated to their Regulatory Action Division.
    6. The Defendant has summarily failed to comply with the Claimant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), despite advising the Information Commissioners Office that the required information has been sent on more than one occasion.
    7. By virtue of the Defendant's failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered damage.
    8. The damage caused is:
    Extra costs incurred due to the Defendants failure to comply - this includes the time & cost of additional correspondence with the Information Commissioners Office, time spent preparing documents and time spent seeking legal advice.
    I estimate this cost to be £100.00
    9. The Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant do comply with the Claimant's Subject Access Request
    10. Under the terms of Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, where the Defendant contests that information requested under the Claimant's Subject Access Request is not included within the scope of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Claimant requests that the Court inspects that information, and where it finds that the Defendant's opinion is unfounded, that it orders such information be included within the information supplied to the Claimant under the Subject Access Request.
    11. Damages and costs within the discretion of the Court.
    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  12. #12
    Battleaxe
    Guest

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Michael,

    you really are being fair regading the damages. I have hit MBNA for the cost of typing the letters, the postage and £100.00 a day for days for research and the filing fee. Altogether I have claimed £595.75 or there about.

    I did say that the damages could be at the discretion fo the court, but thought I would get my bit in first.

    Here's a laugh, our water bed sprung another leak last night, so the money from MBNA will pay for a new matress ( I know, champagne tastes on a lemonade budget).

    My filing and MBNA response got crossed, but they were still late.

    keep us posted Michael

    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  13. #13
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Quote Originally Posted by Battleaxe View Post
    you really are being fair regading the damages.
    Well, being honest with myself I don't think it's actually cost me any more than £100 in terms of time, research, calls & postage (though I didn't use my professional services rate to calculate that ). For me, if I can't justify it to myself, then I couldn't justify it in front of a judge

    Here's a laugh, our water bed sprung another leak last night, so the money from MBNA will pay for a new matress ( I know, champagne tastes on a lemonade budget).
    LOL

    keep us posted Michael
    Don't worry, will do

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  14. #14
    Battleaxe
    Guest

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    With my claim for damages, I calculated that when I work I am paid an average £150.00 a day before tax. I am specialised so work for me is few and far between, and generally it is on a contract these days, this is why I charged £100.00 a day. I also had to get two different lots of services on my phone and all the 0845 and 0870 numnbers I had to ring during that time we were being harassed, so I figure if a judge wants me to quantify the costs I have the paperwork.

    The bed has been patched and we are dry again, until the next time. Life is never dull.


  15. #15
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Quote Originally Posted by Battleaxe View Post
    I calculated that when I work I am paid an average £150.00 a day before tax. I am specialised so work for me is few and far between, and generally it is on a contract these days, this is why I charged £100.00 a day.
    If it came right down to it, my professional rate is higher than that - but I didn't feel that I could charge that for 3 reasons:
    i) I wasn't dealing with my specialised area, which I'd expect people to pay me my full rate for;
    ii) It wasn't days & days of work doing the research; and
    iii) Even fast-track claims only let you charge something like £9.25ph....

    All in all, I can thoroughly justify the £100, and that's what I'm happy with

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  16. #16
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.
    BaldyBaldwin Novitiate



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Jun 2006
    Posts : 695 (0.15 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    have just submitted complaint to ICicon as natwest have ignored my DPA and lbaicon, so will proberly hear some thing next year, am watching yours with interest.
    best of luck BB

    LF53
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  17. #17
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Had a conversation with the "Regulatory Action Division" at the ICOicon today. They've just picked up the case after transfer and wanted to check if NatWest had sent me the information yet. Told her no, and advised that county courticon action had now started - but also ranted that it shouldn't be up to me to take this action on. She said that the ICO would be writing to NW (again ) and would probably take some court action themselves if NW didn't respond to this letter - that could take months though.... go figure!

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  18. #18
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Got my copy of the N1 today - claim issued 14th December, sent 19th December, deemed served 21st December. Defendant has until 4th January 2007 to reply.

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  19. #19
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Received notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed on 2nd January - Defendant now has 28 days from date of service (21/12/06) to file a defenceicon - i.e. til 18/01/07....

    Cheers

    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  20. #20
    Classic Account Holder
    Help the CAG!!
    Make a contribution
    mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative mcuth Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Feb 2006
    Posts : 1,932 (0.42 post per day)

    Default Re: mcuth v NatWest

    Oh, and I thought I'd be really nice & keep the ICOicon uptodate with what's going on, by dropping this letter in the post:

    Regulatory Action Division
    Information Commissioner’s Office
    Wycliffe House
    Water Lane
    Wilmslow
    Cheshire
    SK9 5AF

    Cc: Data Protection Controller
    National Westminster Bank PLC
    135 Bishopsgate
    London
    EC2M 3UR


    Dear Sir/Madam

    National Westminster Bank PLC – your ref XXXXXXXXX


    Further to our discussions before Christmas on the above, I must inform you that I am still as yet to receive any information from National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) in response to my DPA SARicon of 12th June 2006. Indeed, I am yet to receive any sort of communication from NatWest at all!

    without prejudiceicon to any action that your office may take against NatWest, this letter is also to inform you that I have started a county courticon action against them. The claim requests an order from the judge under s7 & 15(2) of the DPA and claims damages in the sum of £100 to reflect the additional correspondence and time spent on investigation, advice & preparation.

    The case is issued in the Swindon County Court, Claim Number 6SN05488 which was served on 21st December 2006. NatWest have acknowledged service and intend to defend the entire claim.

    Yours faithfully,

    {mcuth}




    Cheers



    Michael

    Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

    Please see the following copyright statement
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
We use cookies to personalise content and ads and to provide social media features. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners. See details